|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:22 am
I'm not really gonna go into details of what's happening because it is such a large case, you can google that on your own, but I'm just curious what the opinions of other people are on this issue?
I went onto PlPa and saw they were opposing his nomination, obviously, But the real laughable part was how if their government is so for them, and their constitution, this should not be an issue as he wouldn't get in.
So please, discuss, drink, and launder.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:29 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:49 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:53 pm
In recent years, he's voted pro-choice more than pro-life I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:48 am
Doesn't really affect me, as I'm Canadian.
But we do have a new conservative government.
I don't think they'll do anything about abortion laws, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:43 am
Talon-chan And while this relates to abortion... it is far more anti-woman then anti-abortion, and has very little to do (itself) with abortion. He argued that woman must let their husband's know about them getting a legal surgical procedure. Your opinions on abortion one way or the other be damned... it's rediculous to say a grown adult must be told to inform someone else about their own private decisions because they are married. A woman would not be expected to tell her husband if she got an IUD, her tubes tied, her appendix out, or any other perfectly legal procedure. Her decision to tell or not tell anyone about an operation should be protected by a right to privacy regardless if forcing her to tell would or would not lead to adverse situations. Abortion being something women should be allowed to have or not... your opinions on it one way or another... that's no excuse, and completely irrelevant, for deciding something that so obviously is unconstitutional. As far as the other parts, if they are true and not just twisted facts, or only partial truths, then he truly is a bad person to be a judge. But as far as this one... I kind of disagree. Sure, a woman doesn't have to tell her husband about other surgeries. I don't know why she wouldn't, and I would argue that she should in those cases too because, in a marriage, they are supposed to be acting as one person in most cases, but I don't think it should be law that she have to. But no other surgery kills the husband's offspring, something that is as much a part of the husband as it is a part of the wife. And I have yet for someone to show me where in the Constitution it says we have an absolute right to privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:03 am
Also, from Kate's post: Quote: * A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. Judge Alito wrote: "The plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group [those married women who choose not to inform their husbands] would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209. As previously noted, Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her. If Section 3209 were allowed to take effect, it seems safe to assume that some percentage of the married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands would qualify for and invoke these exceptions. The record, however, is devoid of evidence showing how many women could or could not invoke an exception." So he gives a reason for his discent, and I agree with his reason. He's not saying that all women should be forced to tell the father of the child, the end. Because there's exceptions for the cases where a woman would be harmed, or would have no real reason to tell the father, for instance, if she doesn't know who it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:00 pm
They are partial truths I.Am. I looking in to it right now. I've heard them all some where before and I've seen them all revuted. I need to talk to one of my teachers about it. He's hevay into the stuff about Alito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:11 pm
Talon-chan There is so much more at stake here than mere abortion rights! I understand that you guys are opposed to abortion... but if in order to be rid of it you're willing to sacrifice so much more, if you're willing to sacrifice some basic civil liberties, and hurt so many other people not related to the abortion debate just to achieve those ends... then I'd have no choice but to think you insane, or terribly cruel. And that's why I don't support Alito. It would be nice if his most vocal opponents (or at least the media) would focus on something other than ZOMGABORTION!!! They'd have a lot more clout; I'm fairly certain more people in the U.S. support equal rights and civil rights than support abortion rights. (I hope... gonk )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:29 am
La Veuve Zin Talon-chan There is so much more at stake here than mere abortion rights! I understand that you guys are opposed to abortion... but if in order to be rid of it you're willing to sacrifice so much more, if you're willing to sacrifice some basic civil liberties, and hurt so many other people not related to the abortion debate just to achieve those ends... then I'd have no choice but to think you insane, or terribly cruel. And that's why I don't support Alito. It would be nice if his most vocal opponents (or at least the media) would focus on something other than ZOMGABORTION!!! They'd have a lot more clout; I'm fairly certain more people in the U.S. support equal rights and civil rights than support abortion rights. (I hope... gonk ) The problem is, I am afraid that some of the accusations against this Alito fellow might be taken out of context. Like the one about a wife being forced to tell her husband that she had an abortion. In general, that just sounds bad. But that's not the entire situation, as I said in an earlier post. I'm not saying that this means he's instantly a good guy, but I'm going to reserve my opinion until I've seen both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:23 pm
lymelady In recent years, he's voted pro-choice more than pro-life I believe. He has. I don't remember all three of the cases but these are two events when he voted more pro-choice. He voted to overturn a ban on late term abortions because there was no opening for a woman with a health risk or dead fetus to get an abortion and he voted against a rape victim having to declare a rape before getting an abortion. There was another, but I can't remember it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:55 pm
La Veuve Zin Talon-chan There is so much more at stake here than mere abortion rights! I understand that you guys are opposed to abortion... but if in order to be rid of it you're willing to sacrifice so much more, if you're willing to sacrifice some basic civil liberties, and hurt so many other people not related to the abortion debate just to achieve those ends... then I'd have no choice but to think you insane, or terribly cruel. And that's why I don't support Alito. It would be nice if his most vocal opponents (or at least the media) would focus on something other than ZOMGABORTION!!! They'd have a lot more clout; I'm fairly certain more people in the U.S. support equal rights and civil rights than support abortion rights. (I hope... gonk ) It would have been even nicer if they would have atualy asked him question instead of making practicly blind acusations and them demanding he explain his actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:22 pm
Vivnox lymelady In recent years, he's voted pro-choice more than pro-life I believe. He has. I don't remember all three of the cases but these are two events when he voted more pro-choice. He voted to overturn a ban on late term abortions because there was no opening for a woman with a health risk or dead fetus to get an abortion I've never understood why removing a dead fetus from a woman's uterus is considered abortion. That's like saying morticians are murderers. Banning the process of dilation and extraction is totally different from banning abortions after 6 months, so I have no clue why certain congresspeople hang onto this bullshit of banning procedures. Hell, let's ban Accutane because it can cause birth defects. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:28 pm
The process of removing a dead fetus is identical to the process of removing a live one... hence the same name for the proceedure... which is why all "abortion" bans must make exceptions for health reasons.
I suppose one could lobby to have health-reason-abortions renamed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:46 pm
Talon-chan The process of removing a dead fetus is identical to the process of removing a live one... hence the same name for the proceedure... which is why all "abortion" bans must make exceptions for health reasons. I suppose one could lobby to have health-reason-abortions renamed? I guess I worded that wrong... sweatdrop The difference is whether you have to kill the fetus (or if the fetus would die on its own outside the woman's body) or if it's already dead; if you leave a dead fetus inside you, if your body doesn't expell it, you're pretty much going to die of sepsis. Pro-lifers, though some not-too-sane people have made claims to the contrary, are concerned with not killing the fetus, not keeping it in a woman's uterus no matter what. The health reason exception debate concerns cases in which the fetus is still alive but needs to be killed to save the woman's life (or health). And there you're getting into the whole define-health crap, which I won't go into...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
